IMPORTANT POINT
The deemed date to the notification under Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, given by creating a legal fiction for giving enhanced compensation, has to be limited to that only. It cannot be extended beyond it leading to the issuance of fresh declaration under Section 6 or giving a fresh award under Section 11 of the Act.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1), 6 and 11-Notification under section 4(1)-Deemed date to notification given for giving enhanced compensation to claimants-Notification was issued on 21-8-1985-Deemed date of notification was 1-1-1988-Whether fresh declaration under Section 6 was required to be issued?-(No)-Possession could be taken by the authority under Section 16 of the Act.
       Held : The deemed date to the notification under section 4 was given for the benefit of the appellants only and not to any other land owners whose land were acquired. This Court took care to mention that although the price of the land had increased tremendously owing to the improvements made by the development authority after issuance of notification under section 4 but the appellants would be entitled to only 25% of the potential value of the land relatable to the improvements made by the development authority. The Court after giving a deemed date of notification did not say that from the deemed date given to notification under Section 4, procedure envisaged under the Act of making the declaration under Section 6 or an award under Section 11/11-A was to be followed. Rather the Court gave liberty to the development authority to take possession of the land in accordance with law. Possession could be taken by the authority under section 16. Fresh declaration under section 6 was not required to be issued. An award in terms of section 11/11A of the Act was also not required to be given within two years, as has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. The direction given by the Court was for redetermination of the compensation only. The amount of compensation was to redetermined keeping in view the deemed date given to the notification under section 4 and the improvements made by the authorities between 2nd August, 1985 (the original date of issuance of notification) and the 1st January, 1988 (the deemed date of notification). The appellants entitlement to the increase in the potential value of the land was limited to 25% only. The development authority was held entitled to take possession of the land under section 16 subject to redetermination of the amount of compensation. (Para 10)
       Due to the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court and due to the fact that the proceedings were adjourned before the Land Acquisition Officer nearly 40 times the amount of compensation could not be redetermined at an early date. It was redetermined on 1st January, 1998 and the possession was taken by the authorities on 9th March, 1998. (Para 12)

ORDER

In September, 1977 for acquisition of more than 600 hectares of land, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act ) was issued for the purpose of development of Ujjain, a historical town in Madhya Pradesh. On September 17, 1980, for different reasons the notification was quashed. On 21st August, 1985 the impugned notification was issued afresh under Section 4(1) of the Act. Declaration under section 6 was issued on 25th of July, 1986. The award was made on 22nd July, 1988.

2. The appellants whose land had been acquired filed Writ Petition No. 1707 of 1986 challenging the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under section 6 of the Act to the extent of the acquisition of their land. Indore Bench of the High Court rendered the judgment annulling the notification issued under section 4 of the Act by holding that Scheme No. 23 framed under M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 did not operate against certain specified land of the respondent Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran (hereinafter referred to as the Development Authority ).

3. The Development Authority, being aggrieved, against the judgment of the High Court filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4554-4556 of 1991 which were disposed of by an order of this Court on November, 14, 1991. The same is reported in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Raj Kumar Johri & Ors., 1992(1) SCC 328.

4. Although a finding was recorded by this Court that the Judgment of the High Court could not be faulted with, but still it was held that due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the judgment of the High Court could not be sustained, accordingly, the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the acquisition of the land was upheld.

5. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the date of notification under section 4(1) was postponed to 1st January, 1988 for the purpose of determination of the compensation. It was observed:

Looking at the matter from these different angles, we have thought it appropriate to allow the appeal, vacate the judgment of the High Court and allow the acquisition to remain subject, however, to the condition that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued in 1985 shall be deemed to be one dated January 1, 1988 and the market value of the land for the acquisition shall be determined with reference to that date. We would like to point out that the potential value of the land has substantially enhanced on account of the improvements made pursuant to the notification which had been assailed. We have directed the deemed date of the notification under Section 4(1) to be preponed (sic postponed) by almost three years and during this period the appellant has brought about the bulk of the improvements in the neighbourhood. We direct that 25 per cent of the potential value of the land relatable to the improvements made by the appellant would only be available to the respondents, but in fixing market value all other legitimate considerations shall be taken into account. We make it clear that we have no intention to extend the benefit under Section 28-A of the Act to the owners of the lands already acquired under the notification of 1980 or 1985 on the basis of our direction that the respondent s lands shall be deemed to have been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act on January 1, 1988. In fact our order must be deemed to be a separate notification for acquisition and, therefore, it would not be a common notification for the purpose of Section 28A of the Act. The respondents should, therefore, be entitled to this benefit that instead of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act being of 1985, it shall be treated to be of January 1, 1988. The appellant authority is now entitled to take position (sic possession) in accordance with law, subject to the valuation of the compensation in the manner indicated.

6. A perusal of this order would show that a deemed date to the notification under Section 4(1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 325

Cases Referred (3)